Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sgt_Shock" data-source="post: 4910309" data-attributes="member: 85062">I'd like to address the topic's title first.  I think the DM's rule is final under two conditions: 1. He has read and understood all the by-the-book rules that should apply to the situation and put serious thought into using/not using them.  2. His players trust him. If number one is violated, often the result is a half-baked house rule. One example I like to use would be the Critical Failure houserule a DM we had used in 3.5 edition. On a 1, any number of bad things could happen to you. He liked it because it was funny when heroes failed mundane tasks. And I have to admit, it was. However, he never researched or thought about it enough to realize that it was a rule that had incredible biases. Kaiso, the Monk rolled 5 attacks a round. That's a 25% chance a round that something awful and embarassing would happen to him. Meanwhile, the sorcerer, who never rolled in combat, was effectively immune to the houserule. That DM rule was unfair, and therefore, unfun. Some players are frightened when a DM makes a ruling that isn't in the book, because they don't want to be the victim to unfair treatment. You've got to reassure them that you've looked into the problem and analyzed it from both points of view.  Now, from what it looks like, this guy can't call you out on either of those problems. He probably only uses the rules in situations advantageous to himself. If you catch him defending your monsters' "rights", then he is truly a man with good intentions. However, if looking back you only can recall him defending his own character, there is a serious issue. From your examples, the latter seems to be the truth, but without actually being there/hearing his side of the story, I will remain skeptical.</blockquote>

Verification